XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
      
   On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:05:52 -0200, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:41:20 -0200, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Declining population means   
   >>>>>declining productivity, because the distribution of population changes:   
   >>>>>  you have too many old people and not enough young working people.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>But you're an ignorant fuckwitted cracker, and you can't possibly   
   >>>>>understand that kind of issue.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    If you're right, Goo, I can see how it would have a bad impact.   
   >>>   
   >>>I am right.  You are an ignorant fuckwitted cracker, and you do not   
   >>>understand that kind of issue.   
   >>   
   >>    It's an easy enough concept Goober. You don't know if it's   
   >>correct or if there's more to it though Goob...you can't think in   
   >>depth about anything, and surely there are arguments the other   
   >>way that you're not aware of.   
   >   
   >You   
      
       You're not aware of other possibilities, Goo.   
      
   >>>>I'm sure there's a lot more to it than just that though.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>Thirty years ago people were worried that there were   
   >>>>>>already too many people on the planet. Now I'm guessing there   
   >>>>>>are more, and you're suggesting we're in danger of there becoming   
   >>>>>>too few?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>The UN is concerned enough about this that they've pegged   
   >>>>>>>2050 as roughly the year in which the tipping point occurs.  Remember   
   >>>>>>>-- it only takes a few generations (all other things being equal) of   
   >>>>>>>low birth rates for this to happen.  As a rule, demographers agree   
   >>>>>>>this would NOT be a good thing for anybody.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    It would have to be good for some people.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>No, it would not "have" to be good for anyone.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    If not then it would almost certainly be a first, Goob, so it's   
   >>>>almost certain you're badly mistaken about that.   
   >>>   
   >>>It would not.   
   >>   
   >>    It would be good for some people Goober but as I pointed out   
   >>you can't think in depth enough to get a clue when it would be,   
   >>meaning you even suck at the basics of economics.   
   >   
   >It would not.   
      
       You're only demonstrating your complete ignorance about   
   economics, Goober.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)